Choosing the ERP Implementation Partner - The Weighted Scorecard, From Twenty Names to One

John Hannan

51 minutes ago

8 min read

Selecting an ERP this year? If you lead a multi-site or regulated company and need a full selection program - requirements, RFP, scripted demos, decision - rather than a quick answer, see how our ERP software selection program works, or talk to John.

How do you choose an ERP implementation partner?

The same way you chose the software - as its own selection, with the criteria and weights written down before the first response arrives, the proposed delivery team assessed and the references checked. In one partner selection we ran, the field went from about 20 names to nine firms invited, eight written responses, five asked to propose and four proposals, two finalist presentations and one preferred partner, in 13 weeks. The firm with the highest score in both rounds was not chosen. This post gives the weights, the funnel, the five things a partner has to prove, and the subcontractor nobody on the client side picked.

Software and partner are two decisions

All vendors are not created equal, and an ERP decision is just as much about the partnership as it is about the software. A good platform can have a weak partner in your industry or your region. A capable partner can be the wrong fit because its industry depth is thin, its proposed team is too junior, or its approach is too rigid for the way you run. If we like the software and not the partner, we look for another qualified partner for the same product and carry on with the selection, and we have done exactly that.

Many buyers meet a product through one partner and never ask whether there are others. When a platform is already favored we invite more than one qualified partner for it, and we have watched a committee add another partner for the same product late in a selection because the first team did not convince it, even though the product had. That only happens when you treat the partner as a decision instead of taking whoever the vendor sent.

The funnel - about twenty names to one

For a company restarting its program on a platform it had already chosen, the partner selection ran like this.

About 20 firms were considered, from the software publisher's list, our own market knowledge and existing relationships. Nine were approved for the RFI, the written request for information.
Nine signed the nondisclosure agreement and eight responded. There were no vendor meetings during the RFI. Questions came in writing, and one consolidated written answer went to every firm.
Five advanced to the RFP, the request for proposal. Four responded.
Two presented to the committee. Reference checks were completed before the decision.
One was preferred. One was held as the backup.

Thirteen weeks from the RFI package to the decision, with one point of contact for every partner the whole way through. The last rule matters more than it sounds. Persistence should not buy one partner access or information the others do not get.

The RFI scorecard

The RFI answers one question - which firms can realistically do this work for this company? In this selection, six criteria were each scored one to five and weighted.

Fit with the operating model - 25 percent
Depth on the platform - 20 percent
Capacity and availability for the dates - 15 percent
Scale and staffing fit for a program this size - 15 percent
Recovery and transition fit, because this was a restart - 15 percent
Executive and cultural fit - 10 percent

The weights were set with the client before the first response arrived, and operating model fit and platform depth carried 45 percent between them. They fit that selection. A first implementation would likely move the recovery weight to industry fit or platform depth. A manufacturer looks for planning, shop floor execution and outside processing where a distributor looks for pricing, inventory and warehouse operations. Set the criteria around the work the partner will actually do.

The RFP scorecard

The RFP answers a different question - who will show up, and how will they run it? Six criteria again, weighted again.

The proposed team - 20 percent
The transition approach - 20 percent
Methodology and the project system of record - 15 percent
Commercial terms - 15 percent
References - 10 percent
The finalist presentation - 20 percent

Forty percent of the RFP score sat on the people and the presentation, on purpose. Every firm still in the running had passed the RFI screen. What separated them was who they would put on the project and whether those people could explain the first 90 days in plain terms.

Define what each criterion measures, so the same impression is not counted twice. The team score covers experience and availability, and the presentation tests how that team answers your delivery questions. Score the references and presentations once they are complete, and label any earlier total as interim.

Why the top scorer went home

The firm with the highest RFI score, 4.0 on the five-point scale, also had the highest RFP score, 4.2. It was not selected. The firm that scored fourth on the RFI, 3.3, scored 4.1 on the RFP and was preferred. The firm that had been second on the RFI dropped to 3.3 on the RFP and became the backup.

The top two RFP totals ended a tenth apart, and what decided it was a question the totals could not settle. The preferred firm's experience matched the client's operating pattern closely. With the top scorer, the committee had written down on day one that it needed to confirm which of the firm's teams would actually deliver, and the finalist presentations did not settle that. The decision went to the team the committee could see.

Our decision document template says it plainly - the decision should not be made on score alone. I think of the scorecard as the thing that gets the right two firms into the room with the right questions. The committee still has to decide. When the scorecard and the committee disagree, write down why, with the evidence, and hold every finalist to the same test. If the reason is a real one - the team, the support model, a reference - the decision is sound.

The five things a partner has to prove

Across the RFI, the RFP and the presentations, I look for evidence in five places.

Industry and operating model understanding. The partner should be able to talk about your business in your terms, not only in the platform's. For a distributor that means order to cash, pricing and rebates, inventory across locations, EDI, shipping and returns. For a manufacturer it means planning, scheduling, shop floor execution, quality, outside processing and costing. Ask for examples that match your operation, not ERP experience in general.
Named delivery leadership. The people who sell the project are usually not the people who run it. Ask who will lead the work, how much of their time you get, and what they have delivered before. The roles that matter are the engagement lead, the solution architect, the project manager, the functional leads and the integration, data migration and testing leads. On a smaller project one person may cover two of them, but each needs an owner. Vague staffing language is a risk, and it is the reason the key personnel clause exists.
A methodology the client can govern. Every partner will show you one. The question is whether you can understand it and hold the partner to it - how requirements become design decisions, how fit and gap are documented, how test cases trace back to requirements, how decisions get escalated and closed, and how readiness is measured before go-live.
Transparency in the project system of record. Whatever tool holds the requirements, the backlog, the configurations, the test cases and the defects should be the shared record for the program, not the partner's private workspace. Agree up front which tool is the record and who maintains it. Executives do not need to live in it, but status should be reported from it. If the status report comes from slides instead of the work items, I assume the program is further behind than the slides say until the records show otherwise.
Commercial realism. What the quote covers and excludes, how travel is handled, what happens when scope changes, which rates apply to later work, and what is fixed, milestone-based or time and materials. The lowest price is not the goal. A price that matches the real risk of the project, with the assumptions written down, is.

The partner you did not pick

There is often a firm in the program that nobody on the client side selected. The software vendor brought in an integration subcontractor, or the partner did, and no one on the client side vetted it. In one implementation an integrated order process supported substantially less of the expected order flow than intended, and the review found an integration arrangement nobody on the client side had vetted, ownership split across three parties, and testing that was never end to end. In another, a secondary supplier ran two to four weeks behind the program schedule.

Vet the subcontractor the way you vetted the partner. Who are they, what have they integrated for companies like yours, who on their side owns the interface end to end, and what is their capacity on your dates? Then put it in the paper - the first-phase team named, or described by role with minimum experience, a right to approve any replacement, and one owner for testing the whole process across every application. One client whose product scored well while the demonstration team did not held two extra meetings to meet the people who would actually deliver before it signed. That was the right instinct.

When the platform is already chosen

A partner-only selection works after the software decision, and it fits three situations - the platform was picked without a partner selection, the first partner is not working out, or a second partner is needed for a new country, a new site or a new module. First confirm that the delivery arrangement really is the problem. A new partner will not fix unclear scope, missing client ownership or a platform that cannot meet the requirements.

If the current partner is a viable candidate, put it through the same RFI and RFP as everyone else. If it is not, use its contract and delivery record as the benchmark instead of asking it for a proposal it cannot win. Partner selection is part of our vendor management work, and it is the piece many companies skip because the vendor offered someone.

If you have a platform and need the people, or have a partner and are not sure, talk to John about your ERP program.

Frequently asked questions

How many implementation partners should we invite?

In the selection above, nine to a written RFI, five to the RFP and two to present. That is a good starting shape when enough qualified partners exist. A written RFI is the lighter step for everyone. Presentations take real time on both sides, so keep them for the two firms whose people you need to meet.

What should the weights be?

Set them around the work, in writing, before the first response arrives. In the RFI above, operating model fit and platform depth carried 45 percent between them. In the RFP, the proposed team and the presentation carried 40 percent. Define how each criterion will be scored, so the same impression is not counted twice.

Should we include our current partner?

If it is a viable candidate, yes, and hold it to the same criteria as everyone else. If it is not, its contract and delivery record are your benchmark, and there is no need to ask it for a proposal it cannot win.

Can we choose the partner after the software?

Yes. A partner-only selection is the right structure when the platform is decided and the question is who will implement it. The one above took 13 weeks from the RFI package to the decision. Plan yours around the scope, the responses, team availability, reference checks and approvals.